[release/6.0] Update IntelliSense package #60488
Conversation
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @Anipik, @safern, @ViktorHofer Issue DetailsBackport of #60487 to release/6.0 /cc @carlossanlop Customer ImpactTestingRisk
|
carlossanlop
added
the
Servicing-consider
carlossanlop
requested review from
danmoseley,
jeffhandley,
safern,
ViktorHofer and
ericstj
| @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ | |||
| <FsCheckVersion>2.14.3</FsCheckVersion> | |||
| <SdkVersionForWorkloadTesting>6.0.100-rtm.21480.21</SdkVersionForWorkloadTesting> | |||
| <!-- Docs --> | |||
| <MicrosoftPrivateIntellisenseVersion>6.0.0-preview-20210916.1</MicrosoftPrivateIntellisenseVersion> | |||
| <MicrosoftPrivateIntellisenseVersion>6.0.0-preview-20211015.1</MicrosoftPrivateIntellisenseVersion> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be interesting to just do a diff test of this to make sure nothing stands out (like dropped files or something). I don't think we have a lot of validation for that. It could be a cheap test to do to reduce risk: use Beyond Compare or something to diff the two nuget package directories.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ericstj @safern I created a branch in the api-catalog-infra repo where I uploaded the contents of the contents of the last nuget package (RC1) as the baseline, then I submitted this PR with the contents of the RTM package, to see the diff.
The diff looks good for the modified files, but I noticed there is a new file: IntellisenseFiles/net-6.0/System.Text.Json.SourceGeneration.xml . Do you think having this xml would be problematic?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Update: I realized I decompressed the zip file incorrectly. I first had to delete everything from the baseline folder, then extract the contents of the new file in place. The WPF and WinForms xml files are all missing. I'll investigate this with the Docs team.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR was accidentally merged, but it was promptly reverted. I will create a new backport PR.
carlossanlop
added
the
NO-MERGE
|
It had the No Merge label because of the issue mentioned in the comments above. We first need it to get fixed, then we will generate a new package with the fix, make sure it includes the missing xmls, and then we can merge it. Should we revert this? @Anipik |
|
ah sorry i missed it, we should revert it. |
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
This PR was merged accidentally then backed out. Please see the updated PR: #60621